Open abelsiqueira opened 3 days ago
suvayu
commented
3 days ago However, I think there will be a problem because actions can't trigger actions. So this fix would not be tested until someone opens and closes the PR.
Why do you say that? We can just call the reusable test workflow as a follow-up step with needs: lint. Depending on what we want, it the create PR step can be conditional on whether tests passed.
abelsiqueira
commented
3 days ago I'm thinking of this: https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/triggering-a-workflow#triggering-a-workflow-from-a-workflow
The example that I have is CompatHelper (e.g. https://github.com/TulipaEnergy/TulipaEnergyModel.jl/pull/648/checks). It creates the PR but because it was generated by a workflow with default permissions, it doesn't run the other workflows.
That being said, according to the docs I linked, maybe we just need to use a separate SSH key - and we have one, DOCUMENTER_KEY, that we can reuse.
suvayu
commented
3 days ago I see what you mean, my suggestion essentially duplicates the test workflow. Is that a bad thing since the other option requires complicated setup (storing secrets, etc)?
abelsiqueira
commented
5 hours ago Ok, I get what you mean now. It would not future-proof - although a great use of the reusable workflow - because if we have more tests to run, then we can't add it to the Linter. That being said, the normal approach is to close and re-open the PR to trigger the tests, which might not be an overburden.
Description
It could be the Lint itself:
Failing run:
However, I think there will be a problem because actions can't trigger actions. So this fix would not be tested until someone opens and closes the PR.
Also, it would not work for forks, since it will require write permissions to create the PR.
@suvayu any opinions on the feasibility of this?
Validation and testing
No response
Motivation
No response
Target audience
No response
Can you help?
No response